Mao, Bibo wrote on Wednesday, November 01, 2006 7:12 PM > @@ -463,7 +469,10 @@ void __kprobes arch_arm_kprobe(struct kp > > flush_icache_range((unsigned long)p->ainsn.insn, > (unsigned long)p->ainsn.insn + sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t)); > - memcpy((char *)arm_addr, &p->opcode, sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t)); > + if (ATOMIC_UPDATE) > + kprobe_update_bundle((void *)arm_addr, (void *)&p->opcode); > + else > + memcpy((char *)arm_addr, &p->opcode, sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t)); > flush_icache_range(arm_addr, arm_addr + sizeof(kprobe_opcode_t)); > } Now comments on the code: why memcpy in the else statement? In the earlier part of the patch, you already reject kprobe address on slot 1 if CPU doesn't have 16-byte memory operation. Why do you allow memcpy here? Will the "else" condition ever be executed? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|